Johnson president in1968 (no vietnam war) : who's president in 1972 ?

The POD almost certainly has to be a delayed or perceived as American victory Tet offence. Anything further back than that and we run into major butterflies.

I don't see how you can avoid the Tet Offensive, or get it viewed as an American victory. I think the best you could do is get Walter Cronkite not to publicly say he doesn't think the US can win the war. Perhaps the United States stumbles on equivalent of the famous Lee's Orders for the Tet Offensive, and is able to not be quite so brutally suprised.

As for 1972, I concur with the Reagan-RFK match-up. In 1972 Humphrey will not get the establishment support he got in 1968, and Reagan will be much better prepared and that negates Nixon's only real advantage. McCarthy will not run after Johnson crushed him in 1968.
Even if you change Tet, you still have the MLK assassination, and its attendent urban violence, you still have Johnson having signed the Civil Rights Act, and you still have Nixon's "Southern Strategy." Plus you're dealing with Richard M. Nixon. The man was pathologically committed to becoming president. Whatever dirty tricks and other illegal shenanigans were needed would have been used. LBJ might have been a ruthless political boss, but Nixon's ruthlessness was on a whole nother level.

Rockefeller was, let's face it, an outside shot anytime past 1964 given how much the GOP activists hated him. Nixon won in 1968 because neither Reagan nor Rockefeller ran great campaigns (also Nixon got Thurmond on board, and that prevented the South swinging to Reagan).

(Romney was never a great candidate, and I see few Democrats willing to go head-to-head with RFK. This does leave room for Rockefeller or somebody on the left of the Republican Party to run.)
Romney was actually a pretty candidate, a moderate Republican who was against the war and the governor of a pretty successful state, but a combination of saying he was "brain-washed" about Vietnam and Detroit burning down after the MLK assassination seemed to kind of KO his ambitions. Gov. Spiro Agnew called out the national guard to put down the rioters, so that combined with his complete lack of personal morales (actually his total criminality) really made him the perfect Nixon VP. Oh my God, that's it. SPIRO AGNEW FOR PRESIDENT '72

By few Democrats willing to go head to head will RFK, would you mean Hubert Humphrey or Eugene McCarthy? Because if we allow that LBJ could win against the Nixon Machine in '68, then you can bet that LBJ will use all of his considerable clout to make sure the RFK doesn't get the nomination in '72.

As for who wins? It depends on Johnson's second term, and it depends on the campaign both candidates run.
I do not believe that if LBJ runs against Nixon he would be able to defeat him. RFK might have been able to, because of his brother's legacy, and because of his own ability to appeal to poor white voters, but I don't think that LBJ was capable of beating Richard Nixon.

If he did, then I would say the Reagan would get the '72 nod, and probably win, because the Democrats would be cutting each others throats over the nomination. RFK swore he would destroy Hubert Humphrey political career, and its destruction may be witnessed on national television, while RFK does battle with LBJ on the floor of the Democratic Convention. After RFK wins the nomination, then who is his VP? It has to be someone southern. Maybe Senator Fulbright of Ark.?

After 4 years of saber-rattling Reagan while the United States loses in Vietnam and the Gas Crisis crushes the country, its ready for a different vision. So in 1976 along comes the peanut farmer from Georgia, Mr. Jimmy Carter. He has a big heart, a message of peace abroad, and he's squeaky clean.

Having said this let me repeat SPIRO AGNEW FOR PRESIDENT '72
 
Last edited:
who's EMK ? (I know MLK, the RFK/JFK/ EFK brothers, but EMK is new to me)
Why not RFK in this case ? (aside being killed by Sirhan of course)
Who's on the democrat side along RFK?
from reading threads on this board I understood that, despite the legend which spred after its death, RFK was not really in position to win against Humphrey in august 1968.
Would the 1968 election be Humphrey Vs Rockefeller in the end ?

That's a lot of question I agree.

What about Diem not being killed in november 1963 ? Seems the guy had a LOT of defauts, vut at least its two known qualities were
- he ruled SVN for years
- he was nationalist enough to keep south vietnam afloat

EMK is Edward Kennedy, unlike his brothers his middle name is not Francis.

I've never really thought RFK wanted to be President, so much as he was compelled to be President. Plus, of course RFK continuing on after his brother served two terms is highly unlikely. Dynasties need a time-out.

Actually the consensus is split. Mathematically it was indeed possible for RFK to win, and the momentum from winning California (and in all likelihood) New York probably would have helped a great deal. I'd wager, if we could actually replay it over and over again, that RFK has around a 40% chance of winning the nomination and a 60% chance of winning the general. (Note that I've wagered before, but I think those numbers are roughly consistent with my previous postings).

In your TL with JFK living for two terms Johnson probably gets the nod (note that Humphrey was VP IOTL, and will not be so in the ATL so he probably lacks the stature to beat Johnson in the primaries), and is defeated by Rockefeller in the general.

I don't see how you can avoid the Tet Offensive, or get it viewed as an American victory. I think the best you could do is get Walter Cronkite not to publicly say he doesn't think the US can win the war. Perhaps the United States stumbles on equivalent of the famous Lee's Orders for the Tet Offensive, and is able to not be quite so brutally surprised.

Even if you change Tet, you still have the MLK assassination, and its attendent urban violence, you still have Johnson having signed the Civil Rights Act, and you still have Nixon's "Southern Strategy." Plus you're dealing with Richard M. Nixon. The man was pathologically committed to becoming president. Whatever dirty tricks and other illegal shenanigans were needed would have been used. LBJ might have been a ruthless political boss, but Nixon's ruthlessness was on a whole nother level.

We've shifted further back to a DynaSoar goes early POD, and butterflies prevent JFK's assassination so everything I saw after this no longer applies to Archibald's speculative timeline.

In general terms I agree that it may be the nastiest political fight in the modern era, but no Tet (or one that is perceived as a US victory) probably gets Johnson into the Presidency. His second term is going to suck, though.



Romney was actually a pretty candidate, a moderate Republican who was against the war and the governor of a pretty successful state, but a combination of saying he was "brain-washed" about Vietnam and Detroit burning down after the MLK assassination seemed to kind of KO his ambitions. Gov. Spiro Agnew called out the national guard to put down the rioters, so that combined with his complete lack of personal morales (actually his total criminality) really made him the perfect Nixon VP. Oh my God, that's it. SPIRO AGNEW FOR PRESIDENT '72

Eh. I've never viewed Romney as that great a candidate (regardless if he avoided slip-ups) and really he was just the 1968 Rockefeller stand-in. On the other hand I do like your Agnew in '72 timeline…

By few Democrats willing to go head to head will RFK, would you mean Hubert Humphrey or Eugene McCarthy? Because if we allow that LBJ could win against the Nixon Machine in '68, then you can bet that LBJ will use all of his considerable clout to make sure the RFK doesn't get the nomination in '72.

In 1972? Pretty much everyone agreed that was RFK's year if he sat out 1968. RFK of course was compelled to run once he decided that tearing the party apart was better than Johnson/Viet Nam. In the no longer being used POD of Johnson winning because of Tet or whatever McCarthy is crushed in New Hampshire and RFK stays out.

The establishment didn't like Johnson in the first place, and Humphrey himself got his ass kicked by RFK throughout 1968 relying purely on the vast built-in delegate support that the establishment candidate got automatically (less primaries).

There is no way that Johnson, destroyed by Viet Nam, is strong enough to hand Humphrey the nomination in 1972.

I do not believe that if LBJ runs against Nixon he would be able to defeat him. RFK might have been able to, because of his brother's legacy, and because of his own ability to appeal to poor white voters, but I don't think that LBJ was capable of beating Richard Nixon.

I think you underestimate just how much the 1968 convention damaged the party and how poor Humphrey was as a candidate.

That said, Nixon could easily win as well but I was trying to keep Johnson as President for Archibald—which turned out not to be important for his space timeline.

If he did, then I would say the Reagan would get the '72 nod, and probably win, because the Democrats would be cutting each others throats over the nomination. RFK swore he would destroy Hubert Humphrey political career, and its destruction may be witnessed on national television, while RFK does battle with LBJ on the floor of the Democratic Convention. After RFK wins the nomination, then who is his VP? It has to be someone southern. Maybe Senator Fulbright of Ark.?

After 4 years of saber-rattling Reagan while the United States loses in Vietnam and the Gas Crisis crushes the country, its ready for a different vision. So in 1976 along comes the peanut farmer from Georgia, Mr. Jimmy Carter. He has a big heart, a message of peace abroad, and he's squeaky clean.

Having said this let me repeat SPIRO AGNEW FOR PRESIDENT '72

Johnson would probably be about to die by the time of the 1972 convention, and I really don't think a Johnson Presidency given four more years would have any political power left.

That said I think RFK still presents a big enough break from Johnson, and Reagan is still right-wing enough that the contest is an even one.

Heh. There have been enough butterflies that hopefully we can avoid Carter.
 
EMK is Edward Kennedy, unlike his brothers his middle name is not Francis.

I've never really thought RFK wanted to be President, so much as he was compelled to be President. Plus, of course RFK continuing on after his brother served two terms is highly unlikely. Dynasties need a time-out.

If we have two terms of JFK, then I think that you probably would follow it with a Nixon Presidency. Even if you butterfly away Vietnam, you're left with all the social problems, which I don't think you're giving enough credit to for Nixon's victory.

If JFK survives Dallas in fact, then you rob LBJ of JFK's bloody shirt, which he waved long and hard enough to force serious action on the Civil Rights issue. With JFK as president it would be much harder to pass that kind of bill, because JFK doesn't have the clout with the southern law-makers that Johnson did. So less political action, combined with MLK getting shot (I think it was inevitable) could make JFK's second term seen as a total failure (even more so than LBJ's is viewed).

Then you have 1968. The cities are burning, the Damn-Coward-Democrats (that is one word) allowed Vietnam to fall to the communists (or made peace with the reds, pick whichever is worse) and this looney toon LBJ is trying to convince the country that the only way to make things better is to pour money into these urban warzones (formerly known as American Cities). The Nixon campaign was primarily operating on Americans fears of domestic issues, particularly the rise of lawlessness that the urban riots and the Democratic Convention showcased. After Chicago and Kent State, most people supported the cops and the National Guard, that is the environment in which Nixon won, and it would be roughly similar (I think that the lack of the Vietnam war would be made up for by the lack of political movement for civil rights. Plus I have a lot of confidence that the Kennedy administration could find somewhere else to spend American blood and money during the 60's. There were an awful lot of communist rebels out there).

Actually the consensus is split. Mathematically it was indeed possible for RFK to win, and the momentum from winning California (and in all likelihood) New York probably would have helped a great deal. I'd wager, if we could actually replay it over and over again, that RFK has around a 40% chance of winning the nomination and a 60% chance of winning the general. (Note that I've wagered before, but I think those numbers are roughly consistent with my previous postings).

In your TL with JFK living for two terms Johnson probably gets the nod (note that Humphrey was VP IOTL, and will not be so in the ATL so he probably lacks the stature to beat Johnson in the primaries), and is defeated by Rockefeller in the general.

Rockefellar? Nixon spent all that time getting the support, building the consenus, and the Republican Party is not going to select some East Coast Liberal after just running a totally crazy conservative. They are going to select law and order Dick Nixon, and if they don't, then Tex Colson is going to give them a visit and then they are going to select law and order Dick Nixon.

In general terms I agree that it may be the nastiest political fight in the modern era, but no Tet (or one that is perceived as a US victory) probably gets Johnson into the Presidency. His second term is going to suck, though.
Are we doing 2 terms of JFK, with Dallas avoided, or are we doing JFK dead in '63?

Eh. I've never viewed Romney as that great a candidate (regardless if he avoided slip-ups) and really he was just the 1968 Rockefeller stand-in. On the other hand I do like your Agnew in '72 timeline…
If he'd handled Detroit better and hadn't made that remark, then Romney could have been Nixon's VP. I think Nixon and his people knew about Agnew and just figured that they were good enough to keep it under wraps (or you could look at another way and think that they had Agnew's criminality in their back pocket and pulled it out to take the headlines off Watergate)

In 1972? Pretty much everyone agreed that was RFK's year if he sat out 1968. RFK of course was compelled to run once he decided that tearing the party apart was better than Johnson/Viet Nam. In the no longer being used POD of Johnson winning because of Tet or whatever McCarthy is crushed in New Hampshire and RFK stays out.
McCarthy WAS crushed in NH. He lost the primary. By a lot. But the demonstration that anyone in the party was willing to stand up to him, plus LBJ probably surveying the field and realizing that a Democrat stood little chance of election in '68, created a situation where he decided to call it quits.[/quote]

If he hadn't pulled out after NH, then RFK would have thrown his hat in the ring and had a royal rumble, which RFK probably would have won, because the support that he would have been able to mobilize in '68 would have been amazing.

The establishment didn't like Johnson in the first place, and Humphrey himself got his ass kicked by RFK throughout 1968 relying purely on the vast built-in delegate support that the establishment candidate got automatically (less primaries).

There is no way that Johnson, destroyed by Viet Nam, is strong enough to hand Humphrey the nomination in 1972.

If he was disliked, then who was liked? Johnson was the establishment. He was the former Senate Majority Leader (before becoming Kennedy's VP) who was famous for his political ruthlessness. And he hated RFK. Humphrey would have been LBJ's running mate in '68, and would have had the institutional support. By 1972 the people who would have been for RFK in '72, the students, the poor whites, the blacks, they have all been turned off to the Democrats by LBJ's horrendous 4 years, which was an unrelenting litany of failed offensive, urban rioting, and anti-war terrorism. I don't think that RFK would risk his political capital by running tin that kind of climate. Better to let Hubert Humphrey carry forward the Party Standard and get wasted. Then RFK can pick up the pieces and plan for '76.

I think you underestimate just how much the 1968 convention damaged the party and how poor Humphrey was as a candidate.

That said, Nixon could easily win as well but I was trying to keep Johnson as President for Archibald—which turned out not to be important for his space timeline.
I don't think I underestimate it. But whatever.

Johnson would probably be about to die by the time of the 1972 convention, and I really don't think a Johnson Presidency given four more years would have any political power left.

Hell. Kill him off, dead of a heart attack, and have Humphrey as the President in like '71. RFK doesn't challenge Humphrey for the nomination, and Hubert goes down in fiery defeat to the GOP.

That said I think RFK still presents a big enough break from Johnson, and Reagan is still right-wing enough that the contest is an even one.

Heh. There have been enough butterflies that hopefully we can avoid Carter.

As I said. I think the Democratic Brand would be tainted enough that RFK would have the sense not to run in '72. I'm thinking that Vietnam is still dragging on, and Reagan is elected, probably pledging a secret plan to end the war. So in '76 with the field wide open you get RFK and Jimmy Carter as running mates. That is a nice ticket.

But in 1968, I think you either have RFK as the Democratic Candidate or there is only way to stop Richard Nixon. He must be found in bed with either a live man or a dead woman.
 

Archibald

Banned
So result of this intensive brainstorming is as follow
- Democrat candidate is Johnson, but he is hampered by JFK failed second term
- Republican candidates
Nixon is or dead, or never recover from its 1962 defeat, or simply fail its campaign.
So the two main finalists are Reagan and Rockefeller. Reagan is too conservative for 1968, even if republicans like his ideas.
But the country is not ready, 1968 is not 1976 or 1980.

So in the end Rockfeller beat Johnson by a narrow margin.

Does its sounds ok ?
 
So result of this intensive brainstorming is as follow
- Democrat candidate is Johnson, but he is hampered by JFK failed second term
- Republican candidates
Nixon is or dead, or never recover from its 1962 defeat, or simply fail its campaign.
So the two main finalists are Reagan and Rockefeller. Reagan is too conservative for 1968, even if republicans like his ideas.
But the country is not ready, 1968 is not 1976 or 1980.

So in the end Rockfeller beat Johnson by a narrow margin.

Does its sounds ok ?

Ya that sounds alright. Rockefeller might win by a larger margin. What happens to RFK under a JFK lives scenario? The Senate seat in New York, I presume, would be held by someone else, since RFK would be JFK's campaign manager in '64. I think that RFK could easily be the Democratic candidate for Governor in 1970. IOTL it was Kevin White, the Mayor of Boston. I think he could probably win too, though White lost OTL. I wonder though, if RFK would have continued in politics following the end of his brother's presidency. Without the JFK assassination, RFK stays the ruthless political operator, and never develops the grieved empathy that made him such a powerful and appealing candidate in 1968.

So what is Rockefeller's term going to look like? The guy wasn't as ruthless or as much of an anti-communist as Nixon, so I don't know that he would be able to re-establish relations with China, or pull off a escalation in Vietnam. Would Henry Kissinger be involved in the Rockefeller White House?

Also, in the second Kennedy term, I presume that Kennedy ended the Vietnam involvement, or at least didn't ramp it up. Supported Diem as the President of South Vietnam, just kept it friendly, didn't send in American combat troops? Without the war, the generational divide is going to be far less political, and I think that the student's great battle will be waged over civil rights. Here, without the war the white students are going to be even more fully involved, and I think that Kennedy might actually be able to pass something akin to the OTL Civil Rights Act. Perhaps instead of using JFK's bloody shirt, MLK is killed sooner and JFK uses his death to push the Civil Rights Act through.

The lack of the Vietnam war will have huge consquences on the outcome of the generational divide and how that evolved. If you look at the founding statement of organizations like the Students for a Democratic Society, the people were not drug-head hippies or New Left anti-war yet, they were very much in the Social-Democratic mold. I think that iOTL the '68 election, with its assassinations and Chicago, and the Nixon win (really the lack of a anti-war candidate winning) soured the political activism so much that you ended up either with the tune-in, drop-out crowd or the Weather Underground.

So, in conclusion, I don't think that Kennedy's second term would have necessarily been a failure. It could have been something of a success. And then I think Johnson, who would be running primarily on his Great Society Program, could actually win. With the victories in the Civil Rights' Struggle, and the lack of the Vietnam War, the youth vote will be much more positively engaged, and see Johnson's Great Society as the next step in achieving their vision of a more fair and equal America.

Johnson wins '68. Great Society is enacted in all its glory. Johnson wins a second term in '72. Then the Gas Crisis hits. Since everything thus far has been happy, the country decides to face its dependence on fossil fuels head on, and that is gone after. Johnson continues Kennedy's "Alliance for Progress" in the Americas, and the Pinochet coup never gets off the ground. Other democracies are supported. China and the USSR's conflicts become known to the USA. Tensions are dialed down. '76 sees the election of . . . hmmmmm, a Democrat certainly. Johnson's "Second New Deal" has created the long-talked about and never realized coalition of blue-collar whites and blacks. The Democrats rely on the Working Man, the Black Man, and the Student. Not a Kennedy certainly, maybe George McGovern? He could have been put on the ticket in '72, to bring some regional balance, maybe Ed Muskie, though the guy was a little off . . . well, whatever. I think this is the happiest America I've ever imagined.
 
Johnson wins '68. Great Society is enacted in all its glory. Johnson wins a second term in '72. Then the Gas Crisis hits. Since everything thus far has been happy, the country decides to face its dependence on fossil fuels head on, and that is gone after. Johnson continues Kennedy's "Alliance for Progress" in the Americas, and the Pinochet coup never gets off the ground. Other democracies are supported. China and the USSR's conflicts become known to the USA. Tensions are dialed down. '76 sees the election of . . . hmmmmm, a Democrat certainly. Johnson's "Second New Deal" has created the long-talked about and never realized coalition of blue-collar whites and blacks. The Democrats rely on the Working Man, the Black Man, and the Student. Not a Kennedy certainly, maybe George McGovern? He could have been put on the ticket in '72, to bring some regional balance, maybe Ed Muskie, though the guy was a little off . . . well, whatever. I think this is the happiest America I've ever imagined.[/quote]

<Johnson may be able to to be reelected in 68 but it's very unlikely he would be have been reelected again in 72. In fact the stress and toll of the presidency would precipitated another major heart attack or stroke prior to the 72 election. Even if he did survive that heart attack or stroke it is highly likely that he would not run again in 1972. As a matter of fact, I don't it would be constitutionally possible for him to run for a third term in 1972. >
 
Johnson wins '68. Great Society is enacted in all its glory. Johnson wins a second term in '72. Then the Gas Crisis hits. Since everything thus far has been happy, the country decides to face its dependence on fossil fuels head on, and that is gone after. Johnson continues Kennedy's "Alliance for Progress" in the Americas, and the Pinochet coup never gets off the ground. Other democracies are supported. China and the USSR's conflicts become known to the USA. Tensions are dialed down. '76 sees the election of . . . hmmmmm, a Democrat certainly. Johnson's "Second New Deal" has created the long-talked about and never realized coalition of blue-collar whites and blacks. The Democrats rely on the Working Man, the Black Man, and the Student. Not a Kennedy certainly, maybe George McGovern? He could have been put on the ticket in '72, to bring some regional balance, maybe Ed Muskie, though the guy was a little off . . . well, whatever. I think this is the happiest America I've ever imagined.

<Johnson may be able to to be reelected in 68 but it's very unlikely he would be have been reelected again in 72. In fact the stress and toll of the presidency would precipitated another major heart attack or stroke prior to the 72 election. Even if he did survive that heart attack or stroke it is highly likely that he would not run again in 1972. As a matter of fact, I don't it would be constitutionally possible for him to run for a third term in 1972. > [/quote]


LBJ would not have been able to run in 1972. He had already served his 2 terms plus the unexpired year of JFK's. You'rer right though, even if he could have run in '72, he probably would not have. Gven his health and the fact that in OTL he died 2 days after inaguration day, January 22, 1973, Humphrey may well have run in the '72 election as the incumbant president.
 
A Johnson victory in 1968 won't carry the South and so like most Democrats of OTL following '68 he has to carry just about every swing state—meaning the Northeast, the Great Lakes, and some Pacific states. (It's only in '96 and onwards that Democrats established their own safe states.)

He'll probably do so, but Humphrey in '72 would have a much tougher time. Given that he'll likely be facing Reagan the working class voters will defect as they did IOTL in both '68 and '72, and though it won't be a Nixonian/Reagan landslide I imagine Reagan can eke out a victory over Humphrey.

It's been 12 years of Democrats, after all, and the Humphrey of '72 was a hollow shell of his former self.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Heh, you're right. Shows what I get for never looking JFK's middle name.
 
Top